23 U.S.C. § 409
Renumbered § 407]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Guillen v. Pierce Cnty., 31 P.3d 628 (Wash. 2001).
Guillen v. Pierce Cnty., 31 P.3d 628 (Wash. 2001). “Petitioners also contend that all the materials and data at issue are privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409and consequently also exempt from public disclosure *633 under RCW 42.”
Guillen v. Pierce Cnty., 181 A.L.R. Fed. 741 (Wash. 2001). “Petitioners also contend that all the materials and data at issue are privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409 — and consequently also exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.”
Gendler v. Batiste, 274 P.3d 346 (Wash. 2012). “060 and 23 U.S.C. § 409 . Michael W. Gendler made a public records request for location-specific accident reports from the Washington State Patrol (WSP).”
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2013). “The District Court nevertheless excluded these documents based on two evidentiary privileges: 23 U.S.C. § 409 and 49 U.S.C. § 20903 . Zimmerman argues that the District Court 16 misconstrued these privileges.”
Martinolich v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 532 So. 2d 435 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “Counsel for DOTD objected to the question, citing 23 U.S.C. § 409 as authority. After some dialogue between counsel, the witness did answer and stated that Morgan would be the individual to answer questions about priority listings.”
Stark-Romero v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Co., 276 F.R.D. 531 (D.N.M. 2011). “Amtrak and BNSF Railway have agreed to produce the documents they withheld under 23 U.S.C. § 409 . Insofar as the opinions of the Esquibels’ experts are premised on evidence that is inadmissible under 23 U.”
Goza v. Par. of West Baton Rouge, 21 So. 3d 320 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “DISCUSSION We began our review of this appeal by first considering the DOTD's third assignment of error relative to the trial court's denial of its motion in limine to exclude from evidence the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reports (accident reports) that the plaintiff obtained…”
Long v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005). “We granted certiorari to determine two issues: (1) whether 23 U.S.C. § 409 precludes the admission of correspondence between the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (hereinafter “DOTD”) and a municipality regarding proposed upgrades to a…”
Long v. State Ex Rel. Dotd, 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005). “We granted certiorari to determine two issues: (1) whether 23 U.S.C. § 409 precludes the admission of correspondence between the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (hereinafter "DOTD") and a municipality regarding proposed upgrades to a…”
Palacios v. Louisiana & Delta RR Inc., 740 So. 2d 95 (La. 1999). “We granted writs in this case to determine whether the State of Louisiana, one of the defendants in the lawsuit filed by Palacios, has established that certain information sought by plaintiff during discovery is privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409 . Facts and Procedural History On…”
Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 694 So. 2d 193 (La. 1997). “[*] We granted certiorari to determine when 23 U.S.C. § 409 precludes the admission and discovery of certain exhibits, and to decide proper appellate action in a bifurcated proceeding wherein the trial judge and the jury *196 reach inconsistent verdicts based on the trial…”
Palacios v. Louisiana & Delta R.R., Inc., 721 So. 2d 557 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “Maria Palacios seeks supervisory relief from a trial court judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (hereinafter "DOTD"), which held that certain DOTD reports and other data were shielded from discovery by virtue of 23…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.